Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General?(!) · HackerPapers discussions

Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General?(!) — mentioned by rtheunissen

Sun, 03 May 2020 02:14:52 GMT

There is also https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/papers/1601.04017/

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General?(!) — mentioned by throwaway7281

Sat, 02 May 2020 21:06:10 GMT

Uh, I have to yet find an "enhanced" "view PDF" page, which does not make things worse. Here's a direct link to a PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.04017.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General?(!) — HN submission

Sat, 25 Apr 2020 21:13:02 GMT

Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General

4 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Concurrent Hash Tables: Fast and General?(!) — mentioned by NovaX

Sun, 06 Jan 2019 18:32:06 GMT

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to critique your work, but when something seems wrong it's worth trying to understand why. That's either a mistake in the project or my understanding. Java and C++ concurrent maps scale reads quite well, both in practice and in research. I was comparing only in-memory read-only map lookups, not those that persist like FASTER and MassTree. I should note though that decade or older hardware will have lower multi-threaded throughput by using many slow cores (Azul, Sparc), so those raw numbers are not comparable to today's x86 machines. In my experience when…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.